Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India
Background
The petitioner, Rishi Malhotra, filed a public interest litigation under Article 32 challenging Section 354(5) of the CrPC, 1973 (carried forward as Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which prescribes hanging by the neck as the sole method of executing a death sentence in India. He argued that hanging is a cruel, painful, and outdated method of execution that violates the right to a dignified death under Article 21, and asked the Court to declare the provision unconstitutional and recognise a "right to die by a dignified procedure" as a fundamental right. The petition traced the history of hanging as a method of execution in India from the 1861 Code of Criminal Procedure through to the present, and relied on scientific literature and Law Commission reports questioning whether hanging meets modern humane standards.
Decision Breakdown
The Court reaffirmed that the constitutionality of the death penalty itself is settled law (Jagmohan Singh and Bachan Singh), and the only question here was whether the specific method, hanging, meets the "just, fair and reasonable" standard under Article 21. Relying heavily on the earlier three-judge bench decision in Deena v. Union of India, which had examined the mechanics of hanging in detail and found it to be quick, largely accident-free, and consistent with dignity, the Court held that the petitioner had not placed any fresh scientific, medical, or empirical material capable of displacing that precedent. It rejected the argument that lethal injection is a more humane alternative, noting evidence of botched lethal-injection executions in the United States and the absence of any documented botched hanging in India. The Court declined to refer the matter to a larger bench and dismissed the writ petition, while clarifying that this dismissal does not foreclose future challenges if compelling new scientific evidence emerges, and that the Union Government remains free to review the method of execution through an expert body as a policy matter.
Lesson Learnt
Courts will not disturb a settled constitutional precedent merely because a petitioner personally finds it distasteful: a challenge must be backed by fresh, credible scientific or empirical evidence showing that the factual basis of the earlier ruling has changed. The door for future challenges on this issue remains open only if such evidence is actually produced.